Preaching the gospel of spiritual independence

February 26, 2015

Modern mystics, why should anyone believe your "vision"?

After more than ten years of blogging on this here Church of the Churchless -- 2,410,012 page views; 2,036 posts; 29,750 comments -- I'm still asking this question.

Why should the claims of "modern mystics," who claim to have personally experienced God, spirit, heaven, or some other manifestation of divinity, be taken more seriously than the countless similar claims that have been made by innumerable others throughout recorded history?

I keep on asking this question in various ways, both in blog posts and replies to comments, because it seems to me that those alive today who would have us believe in their supposed brush with the divine shouldn't be given any more credence than those who are dead and gone.

Among the well-known major figures, Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses, along with less familiar Christian, Islamic, and Judaic mystics, saints, seers, and such.

On my book shelves also sit books filled with stories of other Eastern mystics and yogis such as Yogananda, each of whom spoke about encounters with supernatural phenomena. Largely, those stories contradict each other, while being in conflict with one or more of the major religions.

The divine is personal. Or impersonal. It is part and parcel of creation. Or detached from it. It takes great effort and/or grace to realize. Or simply opening one's awareness.

Broadening beyond supernaturalism, Zen, non-religious Buddhism, and Taoism teach that what is most real about the cosmos is entirely natural, capable of being found in the most commonplace things. Even "shit and piss," according to Chuang Tzu.

It's clear that after thousands of years of searching for the Divine Meaning of It All, many humans have claimed to have discovered signs of it.

Problem is, those signs don't match up.

And there is no demonstrable evidence of it. If some sort of non-physical, possibly timeless, higher dimensional realm of reality exists, it sure lacks any way (or desire) to make itself known with even a minimal degree of certainty.

Yet people today -- as tomorrow, and the next day, and the next -- keep on claiming that they have experienced what can't be proven to exist outside of their own minds.

Comments from them regularly appear on my blog posts. I occasionally get emails from them. Whenever I do, my question arises again:

Why should the claims of "modern mystics," who claim to have personally experienced God, spirit, heaven, or some other manifestation of divinity, be taken more seriously than the countless similar claims that have been made by innumerable others throughout recorded history?

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brian wrote: "If some sort of non-physical, possibly timeless, higher dimensional realm of reality exists, it sure lacks any way (or desire) to make itself known with even a minimal degree of certainty."

--To you.

As you say, this mystical dimension of which others speak is in their own minds. Everything we experience is in our own minds, right? You say that yourself. Where else would this mystical dimension be? Over there? Behind the chair? High in the Himalayas? You apparently have not had such an experience, yet. (Except that the universe is a paper bag turned inside out)

You also have written about this.. One must recognize oneself as one's absence as subject. Not just intellectually, but profoundly as in groking fullness. At such time there would be no objects because there is no subject for them to be the object of. There would be no "them". As a result, there would be no time. Because then, who or what is there for time to pass? What then would remain? What could remain? It would be sudden. Less than a micro second. In the space between quanta.

tucson, obviously I'm not denying that people have profound experiences.

Like you said, who else would have them? Elephants? They might have profound experiences (in fact, I'm sure they do), but elephants have no way of telling us about them.

People do. They can describe what they experienced. Which, of course, was an experience of their mind/brain.

I've had my own profound experiences, in and out of meditation. Some of these experiences were psychedelic-drug induced. Others came after hours of meditation. Others, while in nature. Still others, with people.

We are just stuck in this upended paradox. No matter which way intellect is to fly, it is still beholden to ground control. So "my own me" wades through that jello....of what it took to make it

“For I do not exist: there exist but the thousands of mirrors that reflect me. With every acquaintance I make, the population of phantoms resembling me increases. Somewhere they live, somewhere they multiply. I alone do not exist.”

“One is always at home in one's past...”
― Vladimir Nabokov, Speak, Memory

One must recognize oneself as one's absence as subject. Not just intellectually, but profoundly as in groking fullness. At such time there would be no objects because there is no subject for them to be the object of. There would be no "them". As a result, there would be no time. Because then, who or what is there for time to pass? What then would remain? What could remain? It would be sudden. Less than a micro second. In the space between quanta.

This was really it x .
Many times when people are philosophizing I think I am really stupid not understanding them at all. But now x you saved me with Gobbledygook
and suddenly I don't feel stupid anymore. Thanks

When we look at things we see objects. When we turn around and look at ourselves we see subject, right? No. What we see is another object. Objects are in every direction we look. So, the subject we see is not ourselves. We can't see ourselves because it is not there to see. You may see the absence of yourself which is what is looking. So, every time you see an object you are witnessing the subject of that object in its objective manifestation. Every object is a mirror that reflects what is looking.

There. That wasn't so difficult.

By the way, "Grok" is a term used in Robert Heinlein's book "Stranger in a Strange Land". It refers to the spaceman's capacity to perceive a thing or situation in it's entirety or wholeness, as it is, without interference from relative interpretation of mind.

When we look at things we see objects. When we turn around and look at ourselves we see subject, right? No. What we see is another object. Objects are in every direction we look. So, the subject we see is not ourselves. We can't see ourselves because it is not there to see.

It's funny that you accused me of sophistry, tucson, when what you're asserting is the very definition of the word.

What is "looking"? A camera can reproduce with perfect accuracy, what it looks at, but only a human (or a computer program) can give meaning or significance to what is seen. Whatever looking tells the looker is determined by what the looker is already programmed or inclined to see. What is doing the seeing is not absent, but entirely present.

Where is the looker? There isn't one because there would need to be another looker to find the looker. This goes on in a perpetual regression like your image in a mirror facing opposite another mirror. No such thing as a looker exists.

We think we are "what" seems to be present looking. But what we really are is the absence of this imagined presence and the presence of what seems to be absent.

A great book Tucson, I read it years ago and still recall my delight..I always associated it with Tenneyson "The Lady of Shalot" the beautiful lady that had to look at life thro a mirror, she says "I grow half sick of looking at shadows"..Much wisdom in both those wonderful works of art.."Grok" to you my water brother.

We think we are "what" seems to be present looking. But what we really are is the absence of this imagined presence and the presence of what seems to be absent.

Thanks for finally making yourself intelligible, tucson. Still, you've snookered yourself into believing something you like the sound of, but of which there's no evidence or demonstrability.

You are the mind; the content of consciousness. Or as some gurus like to put it, "thought". You are what genetics and experience has wrought, and this unique configuration is what processes perception.

Many people would rather not accept this obvious, verfiable fact because it seems too limiting and deterministic, but nevertheless, there's no way to demonstrate that "you are the absence of this imagined presence". One can only believe it, and clearly, you do.

--to you, because what is looking for evidence is the evidence being looked for. And that's fine. I'm not selling anything. Just talking. I don't expect anyone to say, "Ah, that tucson is onto something. Thank the Ubiquitous Absence for the grace of his exalted non-presence on this blog and his enlightened commentary elicited from the Void. Hallelujah, I'm saved!" I know it's blather and bullshit until it is seen, or it remains so because it isn't seen. But maybe it would serve as a catalyst for intuitive apprehension of something for someone, or not. Whatever.

It is something you realize or not. Either way, it doesn't matter. Nothing matters. Still, we must live as if something does. So, we do what we do. Or, rather, what we find ourselves doing.

By the way, where is your "self" located? You don't shave your "self" do you? You shave what you see in the mirror!

You can't honestly say "nothing matters" when you know that your life has to matter, have meaning, if you're going to continue living. That you give your life meaning by pretending to have realized something profound is your decision.

I feel that most of us, me included sometimes, fall into the Other People Experience Things Like I Do delusion.

This applies to physical experiences, of course. Even more so to mental experiences (which are physical at heart, I'd say, but have an inward feel to them).

Example: my wife goes with me to see the current Radha Soami Satsang Beas guru, Gurinder Singh. She gets to sit in the front row, really close to him. Devotees tell her, "You're going to have an amazing experience."

Actually, she didn't feel like the guru was anything other than a normal human being. The experience was nothing special.

Likewise, and even more so, I think we all have the feeling that if other people could share our inward experiences regarding the Meaning of the Universe, they would see things the way we do.

However, if other people felt inwardly the same way we do, they would be us. Since they obviously are themselves, not us, we can't expect other people to experience things the same way.

So when you speak of "realizing" some truth, this isn't the same as seeing some physical object. Yes, everyone in the room with normal eyesight saw the guru sitting on a stage, but everybody in the room had a different experience of this encounter.

Like I said, this applies even more so when the "object" is mental, like an experience of the non duality of the cosmos. I really don't think we can expect that anyone else will have the same experience. Or if they do have a similar experience, that it will have the same meaning for them.

Another down to earth example: I get lots of comments and questions when people see me riding my bright yellow StreetStrider outdoor elliptical bike around. I always say, "It's so much fun!" But what I really mean is, "It's so much fun for me."

So far I don't believe anyone, out of the dozens I've talked to, has decided to get their own StreetStrider. Reason: they are them, and I am me. My enjoyment of my own experience isn't diminished by other people failing to understand it, or want to share it. I realize that my experience is subjective, and other people might not find any enjoyment in doing what I do.

Thus this is where I think spirituality and religion go awry. Believers assume that what they have experienced can, and should, be experienced by everybody. They make something objective out of something subjective.

It's OK my fellow dudes. I don't require your belief. I do not insist. I don't expect anything. I'm just blabbing on the blog. But, I do feel that of which I have been speaking is accessible to 'others' who may find it interesting although I have no method. It's an intuition I try to put into words, that's all.

x wrote: "You can't honestly say "nothing matters" when you know that your life has to matter, have meaning, if you're going to continue living.

--Sure I can say life has no meaning and still go on living. True, it's all dust in the wind. Trump builds a tower as an edifice to his greatness but one day it will crumble. So did the Roman Empire. So will the cosmos. We all will cease to be manifest in this particular form or appearance.

BUT, while we are here we are compelled by circumstances to do something, even if it is just to breathe. We are here now and in the moment we always find something that kindles a flame of interest even if it is only to find a way to put some food on the table.. or to rule the world. To be Vlad Putin. So, this moment matters because it is here for us to be in, but that's as far as it goes. Still it is all dust in the wind. Even Elvis one day will be forgotten. Yes, even Elvis. Humanity is just running around chasing its tail with all these concepts of what they should be doing of what is important. We have this life and we do what we can, but does it matter, really? Does the death of a loved one matter? Conceptually, yes. In reality, no. The universe doesn't care. It doesn't care about you. It doesn't care about itself because it has no self.

Am I depressed? It sure sounds like it. But no, that's just the way it is for me and I'm fine with it. Don Juan called it his "controlled folly". He knew nothing mattered but still he found a path with "heart". Something that he could put himself into even though he knew it didn't matter. He did it anyway. He was fascinated by it. He enjoyed it. So, start a car dealership if that suits your fancy. Have six kids or win an Olympic medal. Go for it.

x wrote: "That you give your life meaning by pretending to have realized something profound is your decision."

--How do you know I am pretending? You say yourself we cannot know another's experience. What difference does it make if I am pretending or not? Take it or leave it. It doesn't matter. I am not interested in having a cult. That has never been a dream of mine. To have a cult. Gee, wouldn't it be cool to have a cult with lots of fine pussy at my disposal? Maybe I should aspire to that come to think of it. But, no, I don't care that much about pussy these days. So, I don't need believers. I don't even need myself. It is an obstacle to just being here now as it is.

What I have realized or seen is not profound in that it does not confer any more meaning to anything. It is just a more accurate, for me, way of seeing things and I blab about it here. Not a big deal.

"I really love your comments tucson, they don't seem to make sense but they actually do, to me anyway..."

--Thanks. You got it. x will probably call you a dimwit for that, but that's the point. "Wit" is not the operative faculty I try to point to. You know, when you get to "wit's end". That is just the beginning and not just the end.